The problem with the overestimate is that it will subtract too big a value from the load_sum, thereby pushing it down further than it ought to go. Since runnable_load_avg is not subject to a similar 'force', this results in the occasional 'runnable_load > load' situation. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) --- kernel/sched/fair.c | 9 +++------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) --- a/kernel/sched/fair.c +++ b/kernel/sched/fair.c @@ -3469,6 +3469,7 @@ update_cfs_rq_load_avg(u64 now, struct c if (cfs_rq->removed.nr) { unsigned long r; + u32 divider = LOAD_AVG_MAX - 1024 + sa->period_contrib; raw_spin_lock(&cfs_rq->removed.lock); swap(cfs_rq->removed.util_avg, removed_util); @@ -3477,17 +3478,13 @@ update_cfs_rq_load_avg(u64 now, struct c cfs_rq->removed.nr = 0; raw_spin_unlock(&cfs_rq->removed.lock); - /* - * The LOAD_AVG_MAX for _sum is a slight over-estimate, - * which is safe due to sub_positive() clipping at 0. - */ r = removed_load; sub_positive(&sa->load_avg, r); - sub_positive(&sa->load_sum, r * LOAD_AVG_MAX); + sub_positive(&sa->load_sum, r * divider); r = removed_util; sub_positive(&sa->util_avg, r); - sub_positive(&sa->util_sum, r * LOAD_AVG_MAX); + sub_positive(&sa->util_sum, r * divider); add_tg_cfs_propagate(cfs_rq, -(long)removed_runnable_sum);